Comments

  • Lionhawk2

    Social Security is an insurance not an entitlement and Medicare should be extended to everybody not just to the elderly. To cut these programs even to the wealthy would be wrong and even hypocritical. instead we should include all income including capital gains as income and do away with the deductions so that the rich would pay there fair share of the taxes. medical should be a right for every body.

  • Gerald

    Why cut Medicare benefits?  Why not keep Medicare benefits the same (bureaucratically more efficient) and increase the monthly premium for more affluent seniors?  I could easily pay more but I have a very low premium at present.

  • John Ross

    Social Security and Medicare was never intended for rich people and any millionaire that uses such benefits should be forced to pay it back!

  • John Ross

    Social Security and Medicare was never intended for rich people and any millionaire that uses such benefits should be forced to pay it back!

  • John Ross

    Social Security and Medicare was never intended for rich people and any millionaire that uses such benefits should be forced to pay it back!

  • John Ross

    Social Security and Medicare was never intended for rich people and any millionaire that uses such benefits should be forced to pay it back!

  • John Ross

    Social Security and Medicare were never intended for rich people and any millionaire that uses any such benefit should be forced to pay all of it back!!!!

  • Barbara Flatlander

    Rather than cutting benefis fo any person since this takes into the social contract problem, I think it would be a better plan to increase the tax for both on all income eligible to be taxes and this contribution then correlates to be entitled to apply for Medicare and Social Security.  So, if you work for millionires like I did for 12 years, many of those years they took no salary and diverted their income as the system allowed to invest in real estate, turn it over, make huge profits on their investments.  I don’t know when they paid in or how that was calculated but they did not give me a raise for 6 years — once I qualified for the cost -shared 401K.  All of these issues need addressing not just entitlements.  We need to reform how income is fairly taxed for everyone to address how everyone should benefit for Medicare and Social Security. 

  • Guest

    This isn’t a fair question.  I believe that everyone who plans to use any benefits of Social Security should pay the 6.2% (not the current 4.2%) based on ALL wages.  It should not be capped.  The lower income IS supporting the wealthier who take benefits out of the system.  As for Medicare – I believe this should be mandatory for everyone to pay in but costs should be paid by millionaires on their own for their health benefits.

  • Johncelia

    That’s where it’ll start, cut it to the wealthiest Americans.  Before long it will be only for the poorest among us, and once again, the middle class will pay for something and get no benefit.  Raise the tax by 2% or raise the cutoff for collecting it to 250k.

  • Alpha

    Seniors contributed to the Social Security fund their entire working adult lives.  It was not a choice.  Social Security is a benefit and the fund should be used for seniors, not for the whims of Washington politicans.  Social Security should be available for future generations.  It’s their right.

  • Anyonymous Libertarian

    Yes, both should be cut. To whom much is given much is required. The retirement age should be increased. Social security
    was intended for people near the end of life, not 20+ years from it.
    The church should take back it’s responsibility to take care of the
    elderly… there are plenty of wealthy TV preachers who could help out too.  Really why would a preacher need a BMW or a Lexus?  Non-profit secular organizations should rise up for those who don’t want the church to help them out.  We should help each other without the government _making_ us. If we’re truly a civil society, the government doesn’t need to admin this … they would just mess it up resulting in so much fraud and waste. With the internet and crowdsourcing, there is no excuse to not do this ourselves _without_ the governments unnecessary involvement.  It seems to me that the more you force people to help each other the more those who are forced will resent it. In order for this social contract to be maintained, the younger generations would have to continue to agree to the contract and as one of these younger people, I do not give my consent to this contract. I’m fine with working my entire life as it is intended. I’d rather be able to pay my bills including student loans NOW and help others out as much as I can.

  • Anonymous

    It makes sense that the sooner we realize we need to make adjustments, the less severe the adjustments will be.  I receive both social security and medicare and while I am certainly not affluent, I would be okay if I received less as long as it was a shared sacrifice by all recipients.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/EV7NMMZK25AJ42AJGBKX4ZRK7U bob

    Social security began as a retirement safety net for the working poor. Why has it become just another means of retirement income for those who have their own retirement plans who are set for life?  I know some people who have a large retirement income who are planning to go back to work just so the can get qualified to receive social security. Without social security retirement income we would have no retirement. If I had a lot of retirement I would give it up . 

  • Scbaron

    I’ve known since I started contributing to Social Security 52 years ago that someday it would need to be means-tested. I actually never thought I’d collect it, but that hasn’t proven true. I don’t consider it an “entitlement”, since I contributed to it for so many years and it does still pay for itself. Demographics don’t support that forever, though. 
    I do NOT support raising the retirement age. We have enough unemployment, and it is more difficult for older (above 40!) people to land a job.

  • Barbinmo2002

    First there should be cut in waist in our government. 2nd our government is too big, the powers should go back to the States, only the power the Constituion allows should be allowed. 3rd the biggest problem is inflation and jobs. Nothing will work unless we can cut inflation. 4th all foreign aid should stop, we are 15 trillion in debt, what are we doing United States is worse than being broke, we are in debt! All aid to other countries..stop. We will go down with these countries. Not to mention the waist that goes along with this aid. Non profit organizations should be involved in foreign aid.

  • Mhcondit

    I believe asking millionaires and those even wealthier to give up some or most of their Social Security benefits is the most logical and fair way to reform the system. As Warren Buffett remarked, they “made their money off the American public, and it’s time to give some of it back.” 
    If Mitt Romney earned 42 million last year (after taxes?), that amounts to approx. $100,000.00 per day! from his own investment income. Spreading some of his Social Security benefits throughout the middle and lower class population would help those like myself. My this year my 3.6% increase in Social Security amounted to $9. Obviously I must live mostly off my own investment income, which now yields only about 3%.  Because utility companies require reporting the full value of private investment accounts as assets, I don’t qualify for reduced rates. Evidently one must be nearly destitute before help is available.
    MHC, NM

  • Ccroover

    I don’t understand means testing for the rich.
    I mean just get rid of the cap on ssi at  $$$ 106,000 as thier is no cap on medicare

  • Anonymous

    Social Security was always intended to be a supplement to retirement savings. Raise the income cap
    and tax incomes up to $250K and reduce the estate tax exemption. Younger workers could have the option of placing money in an additional personal account which could help them retire at 65 if they choose. Medicare is the real budget breaker. Maybe in the future all Americans will be covered by the Affordable Care Act and coverage for one segment of the population will not be an issue.

  • Tresa

    The biggest problem with reforming Social
    Security and Medicare seems to be the term “entitlement”.  These programs should not be a
    slush fund and free medical care for the rich. 
    If you are a millionaire, you can either buy the health insurance of
    your choice, or reimburse the government for your Medicare treatment. And you
    don’t need Social Security – you HAVE social security. The programs were
    created to be a safety net for seniors that would otherwise be forced into
    poverty, and that is what they should become – the social safety net. Period.
    That doesn’t mean we take away benefits from middle or even upper middle-class
    families, because even they are just one medical emergency away from bankruptcy
    if private insurance fails them. So let’s aim high for the safety net and say
    only millionaires get the shaft. We can all feel sorry for the millionaires.
    From now on Social Security and Medicare are insurance policies that you pay
    into in case you ever, God forbid, head in the direction of destitution and
    become less than a millionaire. If millionaires ever want to trade places with
    someone who gets free money and medical care from the government, in exchange
    for their paycheck, I’m sure they’ll have no problem finding takers. You are
    only “entitled” to be free of the worry of not being able to pay your medical
    or electricity and food bills. And, like government funded
    medical care for the indigent, if millionaires fall into the middle
    class at some point, then they too can receive benefits.

    We can’t reform the current system by making everyone share
    in the sacrifice. The rich won’t be sacrificing nearly as much as the rest of
    us. It’s not a sacrifice to give up something you could easily have paid for yourself in the first
    place. If these programs are cut, it’s the middle class and poor people who
    will have to sacrifice their standard of living, and that means more than just
    foregoing an extra vacation home. This country gave millionaires the
    opportunity to become millionaires, and now they can help the rest of society
    maintain their ability to be the consumers that drive the economy we all depend
    on. Because let’s face it, without the middle class to buy things, all the job
    creation in the world won’t sustain itself.

    Naturally there will be those who say that some
    almost-millionaires will decide not to cross that line in order to still
    qualify for the safety net, which will mean a little less job creation from
    those that would have expanded their business and added some employees (which
    is by no means the majority of people with lots of money).  I’m willing to take that risk, because I’m
    also willing to bet that that impact will be many times more offset by the
    savings to the system and the saving OF the system. The country will reap the
    rewards from all the benefits of maintaining a vibrant middle class and fewer
    people below the poverty line, and all of the seniors can still afford to keep
    GM and Walmart and Starbucks in business as well as pay the rent.

  • Tresa

    The biggest problem with reforming Social
    Security and Medicare seems to be the term “entitlement”.  These programs should not be a
    slush fund and free medical care for the rich. 
    If you are a millionaire, you can either buy the health insurance of
    your choice, or reimburse the government for your Medicare treatment. And you
    don’t need Social Security – you HAVE social security. The programs were
    created to be a safety net for seniors that would otherwise be forced into
    poverty, and that is what they should become – the social safety net. Period.
    That doesn’t mean we take away benefits from middle or even upper middle-class
    families, because even they are just one medical emergency away from bankruptcy
    if private insurance fails them. So let’s aim high for the safety net and say
    only millionaires get the shaft. We can all feel sorry for the millionaires.
    From now on Social Security and Medicare are insurance policies that you pay
    into in case you ever, God forbid, head in the direction of destitution and
    become less than a millionaire. If millionaires ever want to trade places with
    someone who gets free money and medical care from the government, in exchange
    for their paycheck, I’m sure they’ll have no problem finding takers. You are
    only “entitled” to be free of the worry of not being able to pay your medical
    or electricity and food bills. And, like government funded
    medical care for the indigent, if millionaires fall into the middle
    class at some point, then they too can receive benefits.

    We can’t reform the current system by making everyone share
    in the sacrifice. The rich won’t be sacrificing nearly as much as the rest of
    us. It’s not a sacrifice to give up something you could easily have paid for yourself in the first
    place. If these programs are cut, it’s the middle class and poor people who
    will have to sacrifice their standard of living, and that means more than just
    foregoing an extra vacation home. This country gave millionaires the
    opportunity to become millionaires, and now they can help the rest of society
    maintain their ability to be the consumers that drive the economy we all depend
    on. Because let’s face it, without the middle class to buy things, all the job
    creation in the world won’t sustain itself.

    Naturally there will be those who say that some
    almost-millionaires will decide not to cross that line in order to still
    qualify for the safety net, which will mean a little less job creation from
    those that would have expanded their business and added some employees (which
    is by no means the majority of people with lots of money).  I’m willing to take that risk, because I’m
    also willing to bet that that impact will be many times more offset by the
    savings to the system and the saving OF the system. The country will reap the
    rewards from all the benefits of maintaining a vibrant middle class and fewer
    people below the poverty line, and all of the seniors can still afford to keep
    GM and Walmart and Starbucks in business as well as pay the rent.

  • Gtclark

    The one thing not discussed and is not in your poll is the privatization of Social Security and Medicare.  I am absolutely against the privatization of either of these programs.  There is absolutely no need to increase the cost for these senior programs by adding profit, advertising, huge executive salaries, bonuses, and political campaign donations to the these programs overhead.  These programs, even with some government efficiencies, are still less costly then any similar programs operated by the business sector.  In addition, these programs should become profit centers for private business.  I do not want big banks and big insurance companies messing around with these programs.  I am tired of the corporate fraudulent business methods and decisions that hurt these programs beneficiaries. 

  • Gtclark

    The one thing not discussed and is not in your poll is the privatization of Social Security and Medicare.  I am absolutely against the privatization of either of these programs.  There is absolutely no need to increase the cost for these senior programs by adding profit, advertising, huge executive salaries, bonuses, and political campaign donations to the these programs overhead.  These programs, even with some government efficiencies, are still less costly then any similar programs operated by the business sector.  In addition, these programs should become profit centers for private business.  I do not want big banks and big insurance companies messing around with these programs.  I am tired of the corporate fraudulent business methods and decisions that hurt these programs beneficiaries. 

  • Russ300

    SS and Medicare should NOT be means tested.  I am not on the side of millionaires, but as soon as you means test a program, it becomes a welfare program.  It then becomes very easy to change the criteria for eligibility.   There are easier ways to fix the programs.  Remove the 106K cap on SS. Medicare should come down as health care becomes more available.

  • Fourrdev10

    Means Test and raise the cap,its simple. Bring home are jobs and are manufacturing and we will fix are economy,its simple. We must be more Nationalist and Patriotic,BUY AMERICAN,its simple. We must stop exporting are ability to create wealth to are enemy,comi red China,YES they are the enemy. They lie cheat and steal from the USA,,,,,VOTE FOR ROMNEY he will do these simple fixes. We are paying to create the new cold war with China,,STOP THE MADNESS.

  • Mac4

    Fix both:  SS remove the cap.  Medicare open it up to everyone (option)

  • Save it for tomorrow

    I agree they should remove the SS earnings cap.  Most of my life I had to pay SS tax on a 100% of the money I earned, I think everyone should be treated the same and pay on 100% of all earnings,  that’s only fair.  Someone with a income after retirement of $250,000 or more should pay higher premiums for Medicare, maybe 25%.  That income would need to be raised each year and tied to the cost of living index.  I think these two suggestions would go a long way toward solving the present and future crisis.

  • Theodore DiPadova

    Social solidarity–unity among the social/economic classes–is one of our greatest needs today.  The widening gap between the very rich and the average American has been destructive of that unity.  Means testing Social Security would further break down social solidarity in America.  One of the great things about Social Security is that all of us who work and earn pay in, and we all receive our due in turn.  Social Security has enjoyed broad support across the social classes because we view it as social insurance, not social welfare.  I am not among the most wealthy, but I believe that to take Social Security benefits away from those who have achieved greater wealth would turn it into something like a welfare program.  Instead of withholding benefits from the wealthy, we need to expect them to pay into the system in proportion to their earnings along with everyone else.  No earned income should be exempted from the payroll tax.  Social Security can be placed on a sound financial footing with payments into the system that are proportional to the great value that we receive from it.

  • 65 and older

    I would like to see them open Medicare to the spouse of a retired person, even if that spouse is younger than 65.  If you retire at 65 and apply for Medicare and your spouse loses the company health insurance because you retired, what is the spouse to do.  Try to get Health insurance?  It is almost impossible to do, especially if there are pre-existing conditions, even if they are not major.  The insurance companies are not willing to share any risk, they just want the easy money.

  • Pacesq

    If the majority populace favors a progressive federal income tax system, why not have a similar scheme set up regarding Medicare and Social Security benefits?

    In conjunction with that possibility, an immediate change in the taxation of Social Security funds received could be plugged in using the progressive tiering applied to federal taxable income. Presently, only 85% of the Social Security benefit that any recipient receives is calculated into Federal taxable income. Based on one’s overall total annual income(other pensions, annuities, any monetary benefits one gets, including passive investment or capital gains funds) and status (single, married, etc.), using the progressive formula, those recipients whose income/status is deemed enough to trigger full taxation would have their Social Security income taxed at !00%.

    That formerly exempt from Federal tax 15% could be deposited in the Medicare pool of funding. By that same token, the amount of Premium that one pays for Medicare’s additional benefits B&D, could be scaled progressively dependent on the recipients overall income. Also, while one who has reached the age that one can start to receive Social Securiy benefits, but is still actively engaged in compensated employment, those Social Security benefits should be withheld until the person leaves the paid workforce.

    Of course, the current age of eligibility for Medicare benefits could also be raised to reflect the increase in longevity of the populace. Hypothetically, age 67 to become eligible for Medicare, and age 70 to collect full Social Security income benefits (this age should be different for those types of  jobs requiring more physical activity and strength, such as construction, fire fighting, waitressing, landscaping, and the like. Jobs that require the strength and stamina of a younger, more physically fit person). 

    Just some possibilities that might make the entire system more solvent, economically fairer and available for future recipients of this wonderful system that provides pension benefits and medical coverage, without the profit motive being considered (except Medicare Part C, which allowed private entities to become involved under the aim of reducing costs to the system – those Advantage type plans that should require a higher Premium to be paid, if the Medicare recipient wishes to use one).

    The system must be modified to insure its existence.

          

  • Pacesq

    Isn’t a Progressive Federal Income tax system “means testing”? It is certainly not a welfare program, but Social Security and Medicare are programs that are for the welfare of people who have paid FICA to receive these general welfare benefits. The definition of welfare is health,happiness,good fortune, well-being, not necessarily the pejorative definition of receiving something for nothing from the government that somebody else pays for.

    I agree that your suggestions to change the criteria for eligibility, and removing the cap on earned income subject to the FICA tax would be part of the solution, but I disagree that means testing will results in the formation of a government welfare program with this particular system.

    The SSI program (Supplemental Security Income) is designed to help (give money and benefits)  blind, aged, disabled people who have little, or no income. It is a Federal program paid for from general tax revenue, not FICA/SS taxes. It’s easy to assume that this program is paid for with FICA because both of the acronyms for them use SS, but mean different things.

      

  • Hhandyman

    I have to admit bias since i am on Medicare and would currently be dead were it not for my coverage as a stage 5 End Stage Renal Disease Patient working towards  getting on the Kidney Transplant list to try and live as normal a life as i can The thing is this  I am one of over300 patients using hemodialysis  in a county of over  50 thousand people and the cost 70 grand a year for the service for just one of us less the doctor and other costs I have paid into the system for about 40 years and continue to pay into social security from self employment taxes from what little i can earn with an infirm body I work for myself to try and avoid the use of disability funds that honestly i would qualify for if i applied for it but i know me  that would kill my spirit to quit working and then i would loose the life battle as well feeling no purpose at that point.

  • Hhandyman

    means testing simply if you have the means to survive and thrive without using it you should do so  and this would ma that the law

  • Robert Heberle

    Your questions were the most misleading I have seen in a so-called  intelligent  show. You failed to mention other valid remedies and misinformed the public with distorted facts. With only a few small changers like removing the cap on higher incomes, you t;he SS will last well into the next century!

    And you created inter generational war fare by showing only old voters at the polls and in wheel chairs!
    Shame!

    The $600 billion spent annually on the military is a total waste and should be reduced to provide ample funding for the SS and Medicare programs! The huge sum did not prevent 9/11 nor another terrorist attack.

    Jeff Greenfield did a great job preparing a show to satisfy those who who profit from arms manufccturers and the right wingers.

    I will never again donate to PBS after your presentation of such a biased presentation. Please return the originals, Moyers and Brocaccio.

  • Davrwestsr

    social security does not need a means test! All who pay in should receive benefits. The problem is the totally unfair cap on social security at $106,000. Why do 80% of americans have to pay on 100% of their income while the rich and famous making millions per year pay on less than 10% of their income. Also the mega rich who don’t receive an hourly wage, but only short or long term capital gains, pay nothing at all, how fair is that? If the rich paid their fair share grandma would have no worries at all!

  • Anonymous

    I also oppose privatization. Those supporting such a plan never tell people what would be their cost, the effect on the economy or the value of a forced savings. The 401k system has not worked for many investors so why duplicate the system that really needs a guaranteed benefit.

  • RF

    I have watched too many debates on Medicare and I am surprised no one has started to address the elephant in the room — Controlling costs.  We need to get away from the for-profit model for health care.  The proponents of lowering entitlements seem to thing you can shop of medical care like a car or on eBay.  That is hardly the case when you gt plugged into the hospital system.  We need to rethink the model.   I have second thought on the complaint on the cost of senior medical care.  Most have paid they requires Medicare tax and are entitled to services.  But no one has mentioned that those seniors who have worked all their lives and stayed healthy have paid a considerable amount into for-profit insurance system which have been used to provide services to other.  I believe they have paid their fair share of insurance and deserve services as required..

  • Granny

    Congress needs to be put under the same programs as the rest of the citizens  which would put them under Mediccare and Social Security. Then we would all benefit as they would come up with a good program to cover all of us and the future citizens.

  • http://twitter.com/DavidSide001 David Sisson

    Social security was set up to help the people that are not given a chance for a retirement fund with the company they worked with. We should make sure that all of our citizens can retire without haven to suffer. I would have no problem with the rich if they had made their money honestly but most of them did not. We need to take back America from the selfish greedy people that run it now

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BVGE6UDI7XDHTCFRUSFUEVFVHI runi

    There should be two changes in the Social Security Old Age Benefits program. (1) Gradually phase up the current minimum of contribution quarters from 40 (ten years) to 100 (25 years). (2) Gradually phase out “Non-working Spousal benefits”. Currently a “Non-working Spouse” (and, in many cases, a Non-working ex-spouse) receives up to 50% of the Working Spouse’s benefit (in addition to the Working Spouse receiving his or her full benefit), and 100% of the Working Spouse’s benefit after the Working Spouse dies. This provision discriminates against singles and working couples. It also bleeds program funds.

  • Vivian Harte

    When people suggest that the rich not get a Social Security payment, they are suggesting that they give up a very small amount of money, for them.  That way, if they get nothing, they should not have to pay into the system.  What a great deal!  Instead, the cap should be taken off so that the rich pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else, and their Social Security payments should stay the same as they are now.  The rich have taken almost all the profits in business for the past 30 years, and they should now pay much more in taxes, Social Security and otherwise, in the name of fairness.

  • Gracerae

    NO
    Social security is social insurance; everyone who pays in receives benefits.  If you means test it, it will loose its character as social insurance and become welfare.  Then it will lose popular support

  • Dconley

    Entire program, and poll, based on false assumption that nation is facing imminent bankruptcy unless cuts are made to SS and Medicare. No mention of 2.5 trillion surplus in SS Trust Fund, that we seniors paid in advance to get through the Baby-Boom retirement years. (Even Medicare still has a surplus in Trust Fund, though less so.) Solution to Medicare is to slow growth in medical spending — stop extending the “doc fix”, for example. As for Social Security, it is solvent for 25 more years at current rates; why is PBS obsessing on it as if it were an urgent problem? PBS presented only half the facts on this issue and bought into a lot of right-wing think tank rhetoric at face value.  

  • Ronn_Greek

    Promises made, promises kept.

  • Youngfelt1

    This is a Trojan Horse for those who want to either privatize or destroy both SS and MC. By restricting these benefits to those who are not millionaires, it will slowly become a welfare program. Then all its opponents have to do is keep lowering the amount for eligibility until it becomes an assistance program for the poor. Finally, just like under Clinton and Republican Congress in 1996, it will ended.

  • Alaraujo1

    NO! Eliminate the maximum income that is taxed, include all types of income as equal for tax, reduce benefits to individuals at very high incomes in retirement ( say 250K/family and indexed to inflation), vigorously enforce and severely penalize fraud (put people in jail and close businesses-take their property), don’t use tax as political tool (as Obama is-I still like him though), give rewards/bonuses  for efficient and cost saving methods (measured by norm) for medical services,
    THERE IS NO EMERGENCY!

  • Youngfelt1

    Of course it did. Look who hosted the show-Jeff Greenfield. Also, PBS and these programs are funded by many of the same interests that want either privatize and eliminate SS and MC. Don’t let the “Public” part of PBS fool you.

  • Youngfelt1

    Of course it did. Look who hosted the show-Jeff Greenfield. Also, PBS and these programs are funded by many of the same interests that want either privatize and eliminate SS and MC. Don’t let the “Public” part of PBS fool you.

  • Abc4

    No cuts to affluent Americans. the social security system (see the .gov website) was set up to include all working Americans, including the working poor to the most affluent for a reason. The main arguement was that those who contribute also benefit. Those who do not contribute do not benefit. As the benefit for the wealthy has a relatively low cap, so followed the income cap upon which FICA deductions are based.

    By this reasoning, if wealthy Americans are refused payment, the contract is voided, and they do not have to contribute. If everyone does not contribute, then the insurance plan fails. In the throes of the first Great Depression, it was a well thought out strategy, and one that has worked for many generations.

    Therefore, those who contribute also benefit, from the working poor to the most wealthy.

  • Mike H.

    This is a no brainer! Just scrap the cap on social security and fix Medicare Part D.

  • Phsato

    Remembering my grandparents fear of the poor house or handouts in their old age, the insurance aspect of the programs is essential to keep for one’s sense of dignity.  Besides, vouchers is a slippery slope leading to cuts in tough times and classing recipients as welfare takers.  Lifting the cap on high income earners is one way to nourish the Social Security trust fund, and publicizing and expanding hospice care for end of life care reduces medicare outlays.

  • Rsears58

    Let’s fix the ponzi scam.  Sure, everybody who is getting S.S. right now don’t want to touch it.  It makes sense.  What about those of us who are 50-something who have paid much into S.S. with the belief it was a safe investment…..and now, we’re told it could go broke and those getting it right now don’t want anything to do with fixing it for the future.  Let’s raise S.S. taxable income to about 250,000 and raise the age by 6 months every year for the next 20 years.  Also, let’s mean test families who retire.  If they have at least 5000 monthly income from a total of S.S., investments, stock dividends and other income, then they should have their S.S. capped.  I plan on living on less than 2500 per month when I reach age 62.  Why can’t other Americans….rich shits…..live on a reasonable amount?  Americans are greedy when it comes to material things and stuff……..

  • Btavares

     

    The question is framed too simplisticly.  There is a limit to what workers can
    contribute.  These programs need to
    be restructured.  Eliminating the earnings
    cap on social security earnings is a good first step.  Slowly increasing the age for collecting benefits is
    another.  Finally, means testing
    benefits might be a last resort.  

  • talkswithowls

    You make more sense than anyone posting……..”controling costs” and “we need to rethink the model”

  • Ia728

    I’ve been paying for Medicare since 1966 and now I’m paying $1200 a year.  A million Americans depend on oxygen from Medicare and I’m one of them. I have cluster headaches which produce the highest level of pain there is. Oxygen aborts it almost instantly, but Medicare doesn’t like it because there’s no patent on air and it’s cheap, so they cut a million of us out of access to oxygen and this new policy WILL kill people. Medicare has been looted by politicians and they don’t really care who lives and who dies. Medicine is just a sideline for them.  I’d gladly take all the money I’ve paid into them and quit Medicare. The worst thing is they broke their word which will cost me thousands out of a modest retirement.  They want to be able to say Medicare is still here, and it is but it’s being hollowed out instead. I always thought when I got this old, they’d keep their hands off of us because we’re the generation that went out into the streets to bring the Vietnam war to an end and if they push us, we’ll push back. If we don’t go out in the streets to create disorder the politicians will continue tearing down Medicare. This is a life or death issue.

  • Z

    The Nation is bankrupt. No program is solvent. Your numbers are an accounting fiction. As in all Ponzi schemes the money disappeared in so many general revenue boondoggles and earmarks. Payroll taxes must be invested in IRAs and M/HSAs. Investing in private industry plant and equipment creates and sustains employment. Means test all entitlements by applying the SSI rules to all or stop means testing SSI for the poor. This is mandated by the Equal Protection Constitutional guarantees just like the Fifth Amendment prohibition against takings should extend full entitlement benefits to those with less than forty FICA credits.

  • Z

    Payroll taxes should go into IRAs and H/MSAs.

  • Z

    FICA has destroyed the value of real savings, and, thus, the incentive to ever save. Government does not apply inflation adjustments to your savings account deposits of years past or COLAS to your investment income. Moreover, the Treasury does not even pay one percent on USA bonds and the Fed merely devalues our currency and keeps interest rates so low speculators push real estate prices beyond the reach of all. The government does not even tax all the capital gains on real estate sales. These gains are all unearned windfall profits which must be recaptured to refinance the mortgage securities in which our financial institutions invested our savings.

  • K garcia

    Keep your hands off Medicare.!!!!! We worked for it. Tell the government to stop borrowing and return what they borrowed. As older citizens are on fixed income they can’t afford any medicare raises. Stop giving medicade to people who don’t want to work, because of all the perks.